tabletop rpgs-are they really games? or rather a "fun" interactive experience

[xechnao]

A game, traditionally, is an endeavor of unknown conclusion but of known possible outcomes. This means that any game has a clear goal. In their most simple implementation you can either achieve the goal or fail. Win or lose. This definition about games is even valid for team based games where each member has to achieve on what goals its team role dictates. And it seems that a game and a race in theory are the same thing. Where they differ is the fact that in a race it is more clear the progress of the endeavor and its most probable outcome while been undertaken.

But what about tabletop rpgs? Can we say that they have clear game goals? Their nature is one of a team and each member assumes a role but does this role have the clear goals as in a team based game?

If so why the need of adventure? Because no reflection of the need of exploration and discovery in one's team role may very well create incompatibility problematics here. So the question since it seems rather more appropriate if clear game goals are established to be done with adventuring.

In case you are not convinced about potential incompatibility problems think of how team adventuring works in principle. It is clear that one needs a way to play with an ever evolving dynamic ground that offers the needed dimension for such an endeavor of exploration to be played. Such a way is the simulationism that many tabletop roleplaying games offer. And it becomes clear that any gaming goals one's team role has, they will influence or weight on the dimension of exploration because even in this dimension the gameplay is team based. So follow one's clear team role or try to reflect on ways to explore and make new discoveries?

I tend to choose the second answer of the last question. I believe traditional rpgs are more interactive experiences than traditional games. So the question in the title. What do you think?

 

[Leif]

I'm not sure how to respond to the question. Ultimately, I'm not entirely convinced that it really makes a difference. Really, the answer depends on how you define the word 'game.' If it is defined as a competitive endavor, then, clearly, rpgs are more of an 'interactive endeavor.' But if you define a 'game' as a pleasurable pastime that serves no real-world purpose, then rpgs are definitely games!

Now, what was my point again?

 

[xechnao]

I'm not sure how to respond to the question. Ultimately, I'm not entirely convinced that it really makes a difference. Really, the answer depends on how you define the word 'game.' If it is defined as a competitive endavor, then, clearly, rpgs are more of an 'interactive endeavor.' But if you define a 'game' as a pleasurable pastime that serves no real-world purpose, then rpgs are definitely games!

Now, what was my point again?

I tried to give a definition about games in the first paragraph. By this video games are indeed games be it solo, competitive or collaborative. For example playing either PvE or PvP in WoW is considered playing a "game". Moreover in game theory there are games where there is no such matter or question of collaboration or competition. The game keyword is "clear goal" by the game's rules.

 

[jdrakeh]

Really, the answer depends on how you define the word 'game.' If it is defined as a competitive endavor, then, clearly, rpgs are more of an 'interactive endeavor.' But if you define a 'game' as a pleasurable pastime that serves no real-world purpose, then rpgs are definitely games!

This. Per Merriam Webster both . . .

1 a (1): activity engaged in for diversion or amusement.

. . . and . . .

3 a (1): a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other

. . . are valid definitions of the word "game".

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

If you are asking whether or not RPGs have goals that can be measured or are simply a matter of sitting down at the table and doing whatever you want. I'd say both are true. I personally prefer games with goals as I don't trust my friends to do anything other than sit around and make jokes if not given a goal. But RPGs can do both just fine.

Sometimes you are playing the D&D game whose goal is to help each other go into the Temple of Elemental Evil and destroy the evil force there. Sometimes you are playing the D&D game where you wander from town to town trying out the ale in various taverns.

 

[Umbran]

A game, traditionally, is an endeavor of unknown conclusion but of known possible outcomes.

I don't accept this posit as general. Traditionally, the word is not precisely defined.

In most language, context matters - if I am talking with a mathematician, what I am going to call a game (in terms of "games theory") is different from what I'm going to call a game when talking with folks at a dinner party, for example.

So, before we try to define and pigeonhole, we need to know why the classification is necessary. What is the purpose of the question?

I think, for speaking with the general public, the word "game" is useful to help characterize the activity. It is a game in terms of "something to do that doesn't really produce a product, but is an engaging use of time".

 

[xechnao]

I don't accept this posit as general. Traditionally, the word is not precisely defined.

In most language, context matters - if I am talking with a mathematician, what I am going to call a game (in terms of "games theory") is different from what I'm going to call a game when talking with folks at a dinner party, for example.

So, before we try to define and pigeonhole, we need to know why the classification is necessary. What is the purpose of the question?

I think, for speaking with the general public, the word "game" is useful to help characterize the activity. It is a game in terms of "something to do that doesn't really produce a product, but is an engaging use of time".

Fair enough. Consider the "traditionally" characterization a mistake and lets not confuse the term with what the word entertainment is generally about but rather try to be more specific on some context as you say. Lets place our context on what a tabletop rpg is about -how it is supposed to work in contrast with other activities officially acclaimed as games. From olympic games to video games to board games to scientific roleplaying games (and make it clear that while films and toys entertain for example they are not considered games).
I would also like to see your insight on the incompatibility thesis among game serving "gamism" and simulationism (adventuring) serving "gamism". I use the term "gamism" since I can not say if we finally agree or disagree to consider it appropriate for our context.

 

[Akaiku]

IMO, the thing that defines if something is a game is, "Can you lose?"
In my experience, anything you can actually lose people accept as a game. If the heroes in your rpg have a literary unspoken plot guarantee of success, many will say it's not a game then. So it mostly just depends on the style of game, really.

 

[jdrakeh]

IIRC, the last time that this was discussed, it ended with a really bizarre concensus like 'People don't play games for entertainment but, rather, to test their faculties and fight for supreme domination over others.'

 

[maddman75]

IMO, the thing that defines if something is a game is, "Can you lose?"

So golf isn't a game?